Hi the soveriegn right of Australia to increase the size of its army are undeniable, however the underpinnings of the need to increase of greater instability needs to be questioned. Are we entering an hobbesian world which is brutal and unfriendly or is it that Australia wants to fulfill its obligation to the international peace keeping and other commitments better. Or is it that there is pressure from the US to take on greater responsibilities regionally what with the recent problems in the Pacific region as well as the Middle East. However these problems are not likely to be resolved by greater militarization but more use of soft power, which Australia has not exploited so far. Thanks. rahul:smokie
Australian Accretions to the Army
- Thread starter rahulb
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well Rahulb, I'm not sure what the title means or what this "soft power" you refer to is. Does it perhaps mean Brahmos missiles, aircraft carriers, massive SU-30MKI, tank, artillery and ballistic missile fleets along with of course, nuclear weapons?rahulb said:
If so you are very much correct. Australia has NOT exploited it so far. For you see Australian forces are designed specifically for predominantly defensive operations. We operate a VERY limited offensive strike capability (about 17 F-111's currently comprise the majority of it) and do not seek to influence other Countries through our acquisition of military capabilities. Once this expansion is complete our Army will be 30,000 strong. That's it.
Who would you like to compare it to in size? Indonesia perhaps? They operate a land force of approximately 200,000-300,000 strong. Roughly 10 times the size of the Australian Army. Who then on this simplistic basis (which is the level you seem so keen to argue at) is the more militaristic?
The recent increase to the Australian Army is in fact simply formally acknowledging that the size of our Army has been TOO small to complete any realistic missions. The Australian Government requires the Australian Army to be capable of supporting a Brigade strength formation on operations for an extended period as well as a separate battalion group on operations in a separate theatre. Until now the Australian Army has NOT been capable of achieving even this small requirement.
If on the other hand, you presume to indicate Australia has been indiscriminate in it's use of military force, please tell of these incidents I for one am completely unaware of any.
The ONLY complaint of the unlawful use of force I am aware of that has been lodged against the Australian Army in any of it's operations since Vietnam was in relation to an incident where an SASR trooper allegedly kicked the dead body of a Timorese militia fighter after this fighter had been killed by SASR personnel when the SASR patrol were ambushed BY this militia group. The SASR patrol suffered one soldier wounded and the militia group 3x dead.
The matter was fully investigated by Military Police AND Federal Police agents external to the Australian Army and the SASR officer was found NOT to have acted unlawfully.
Anyway I will now put my moderators hat on.
You have made a number of statements if not accusations in your post. Read the rules and you will understand such need to be supported. Continued posts will be deleted and you will be banned. Be warned.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Dear Sir, Please accept my apologies if i have made any offensive statements and these may kindly be deleted immediately. There is nothing against any country or nation and least of Australia which we all greatly respect, it is a land of great opportunity. that is why i have started with the soveriegn rights theme. What we are trying to propose is soft power, it is not hard power of weapons and forces, but soft power of economic, development, educational aid and assistance and not weaponisation. That is the theme and not any accusation against any country or nation, if that is so i will withdraw my post. But I think there is good reason to discuss the use of soft versus hard power to bring stability in the region of interest. thanks. rahul
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That's fine mate, I think the post can stay, I was just trying to head off any "deteriorating arguments".rahulb said:
I think you may find a bit closer study of Australian Peace Keeping operations enlightening.
Having a look at the Interfet operation in East Timor is a good start. Most information required can be found here:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/parchive/2000/S2000-Nov-7/easttimor.defence.gov.au/index.html
I now understand you're point about "soft power" but it's only something that can work in an absence of violence. Unfortunately these failed states are such mainly because of the violence present in them.
It is a sad reality that only military forces are capable of stopping and preventing future instances of large scale violence, otherwise it's a policing and capacity building issue...
I believe a great man once said about military diplomacyrahulb said:
"tread softly, and carry a very large stick"
Considering that when Aus has deployed, its startergy is laid out, and straight to the point of the objective. The ADF ensure they thouroughly(spell check) review their procedures, force requirments and plans. If and when force is used, its used decisively and proffesionally. Its rare we hear about any australians being in fire fights because they calm a situation down before it gets that far. Timor is a brilliant example of this, where from the commander down all had diplomacy as a main plan, but force as a ready reserve. Many potential firefights were prevented.
To your original intent in the post. For a country as big as Aus, and with a large number of deployments overseas, it made sense that the army should expand. RAR has been deployed reguarly since 1999. Timor has had a large contigent of troops, in both deployments. 1999, 2006. and this has been on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Solomon Islands, not to mention the small number of personel who are either in malaysia, or here training. For 22 million people to be protected by 55,000 is a huge task, and expansion is needed to increase the number of men and women able to be deployed in an emergency here or overseas. 2600 is a small increase according to global standards, but here it is quite large. The ever increasing budget for defence has helped to supply the best trained army in the world with the best equipment, and an increase in size only helps the rest of the world in our ability to aid others.